Done. Hmmm, no I’m still going with my own judgment, because it’s the one I’ve got. But thanks for the thought.

OK, thanks. Just try and find a slightly less distasteful term than "emotionally retarded" for people whose affect display makes you feel all icky in your water, m'kay? At least make the effort on threads discussing disability issues.

One Paragraph after pointing out that individuals have impairments and not disabilities, is probably not the best time to point out that we've confirmed the rights of persons with disabilities

Yes, some of our colleagues need to be better with the basics. Impairments *are* the same as "disabilities".

Backwards Americanisms like that snuck back in via the UN Convention process and a lack of strategic nous and leadership here has let that stand when we were leading the world in our thinking. It's hard to be harsh with silly old fools like Lockwood in those circumstances.

This is a clear case where we get to see who walks the talk when it comes to concrete action around disability issues

Quite. Though it wasn't the best answer, I have to salute Winston for coming out so promptly and practically in support. Has current government Disability Minister Tariana Turia said anything at all? Links welcome.

I can not for the life of me figure out why provisions for interpretation between all three of NZ’s official languages are not already available in Parliament.

To be fair to Lockwood, he has said he's willing to fund NZSL interpreters - but notetaking in English is beyond the way he's thinking about it.

The use of real-time note-takers is an interim measure until the House is made properly accessible. More permanent real-time captioning arrangements have been/are being scoped.

Paying for that may be more of a big deal. I tend to agree with whoever said upthread that there's some internal political pressure about being seen to control expenses, and Lockwood's ego has prevented the backdown which Welli insiders were confidently expecting him to make in his 3.30pm media announcement the other day.

OK, thanks. Just try and find a slightly less distasteful term than “emotionally retarded” for people whose affect display makes you feel all icky in your water, m’kay? At least make the effort on threads discussing disability issues.

Please do not lecture Ben about disability issues.

Some of the arguments here, including those I’ve been involved in, are becoming really counterproductive. Ease up, everyone. It’s like we’re trying to find things to disagree on because we’re all in agreement about the core issues.

To be fair to Lockwood, he has said he’s willing to fund NZSL interpreters – but notetaking in English is beyond the way he’s thinking about it.

Now I'm really confused. Both would seem to be no-brainers to me. But yes, there's that pressure to cut costs, apparently getting to the point where "counterproductive" isn't quite strong enough to describe the results of some of that cost-cutting.

Done. Hmmm, no I’m still going with my own judgment, because it’s the one I’ve got.

And, you see, that’s kind of the problem right there. That (entirely understandable) assumption that “my own assumptions about interpreting behaviour are correct, because they’ve always worked for me so far” – which doesn’t work when you meet someone who operates (whether for cultural or neurological reasons) by different rules.

Now, let’s put this back in context for a moment – you were interpreting Lockwood’s body language. That, I think, is defensible: I don’t think anyone is seriously arguing that Lockwood is from a culture with significantly different rules for kinesic expression than yourself, and so your judgement of his reactions is likely to be fairly reliable.

Whereas Craig was describing the situation where a student (the person being judged) is operating with different behavioural rules than the (more powerful) person, from the dominant culture, doing the judging. This is a really serious sociolinguistic problem, because unless the teacher gets explicit training in how to interpret the culturally-conditioned behaviour of the student, the teacher cannot accurately interpret the student’s behaviour, and (unless the culture-based nature of this miscommunication is identified) will attribute the problem to the student having some socially undesirable traits.

Actually, even with such consciousness-raising training, it is quite hard to apply this knowledge to interpreting real-time interactions.

I’m currently reading a thread at the Dimpost on Mallard’s latest phuqueup and thinking of straws, camels and asses. I suppose it’s interesting to compare the different forms that a fundamental sense of entitlement can take, and hope that in both cases, the law, obligations to UN conventions and suchlike will actually matter… and that real advances will be made.

Personally, stepping aside from one of my personae, instead of saying that the glass exceeds requirements by a factor of two, I think that the Mojo Mathers case will in the long run set a positive precedent. There, that’s optimistic!

nzlemming:

What’s interesting is that some people who talk about a “level playing field” really mean that “no-one should be allowed to get anything that I don’t get!”

It’s too late at night for me to bother to find the links, but sociobiologists <cough> evolutionary psychologists like to note that we’re a jealous lot, angry to see others getting things that are “undeserved”. The crudest response is indeed provoked by an awareness that someone is getting something that one is not also getting, without the empathic comprehension that someone else is in need… hence the subhuman Leighton Smith and Lackwit Smirk being unable to comprehend that Mojo Mathers is already trying to climb out of a pit in the artificially raised and slanted level playing field.

Still, you’ve got to be sympathetic. Consider the recent film, The Muppets and the problems that the characters faced. Think of poor Lackwit Smirk – think of the discrimination he has had to face for years.

As a poor Thunderbirds puppet living long after the series has been cancelled and “Supermarianation” has been superceded by techniques that have themselves been superceded by CGI, Lackwit has had to face endless humiliation for being a grinning wooden caricature of a human being, accepted by no-one as an authentic puppet or a real live boy like the triumphant Pinocchio – let alone an actual flesh-and-blood human. There is no place for him; instead he has been crammed awkwardly into positions where his essential lack of identity has been irrelevant, such as Speaker of the House, and soon, High Commissioner to London – but all the time he knows, we’re all sniggering at him behind his back, whispering to each other, “You know he’s not really real, and yet he tries so hard to show that he is… it’s a joke, isn’t it – do you think he knows?”

Yes, he does. Poor fellow. Poor, poor fellow.

Think of the added humiliation he has had to face: Mysterons, Autons and now Cylons – all so, so much better, all so much more authentic and finally, to cap it all, the Cylons are accepted as real people! Even Frankenstein’s creature sneers at him, and as for what bloody Isaac Asimov had to say… and Alan Bloody Turing, to add insult to injury...

Have you seen The Adventures of Tintin? Can you possibly imagine the pain that that might cause, you heartless swine?!

There he is, with that huge sense of entitlement… and no-one cares. I weep, I truly do (…ah, no, I tell a lie, sorry).

The poor fellow, I really feel sorry for him, in measurable quantities and times – all with negative exponents.

Still, does anyone know Eric Cartman’s number? We should put them in touch with each other, don’t you think? I can imagine dear Lackwit and his underage protege at a bar, crying into their milk in unison, “No-one respects mah authoritah…”

Trev can look on in bewilderment, saying “I have no idea what you’re talking about.”

That question didnt mention anything about co-operative efforts...with those, even the goldfish would be up there, with all the others, and then they'd assist the tree down to aid the elephant to stand on it (there was no mention of how high the tree was to be climbed...)